Advertisement

Early Database Initiatives: The Fyler Codes

  • Steven D. ColanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The escalating movement in the health care industry towards electronic medical recordkeeping has been substantially impeded by the lack of clinical data standards. The classification systems that are in common use, such as the ICD-9-CM, rely on broad disease categories with insufficient granularity to permit valid analysis of outcomes. This shortcoming is particularly evident in the field of congenital heart disease, where the highly heterogeneous congenital malformations are grouped into just 39categories in the ICD-9 nomenclature. As described in other sections of this book, for over a decade there has been a concerted effort by various consortia of congenital cardiologists and cardiac surgeons to rectify this situation. When undertaking an effort of this magnitude it is useful to examine the successes and failures of existing nomenclatures in order to improve on history rather than to simply repeat it. In this regard, the Fyler Coding System (FCS) is one of the earliest (if not the earliest) experience with introduction of a comprehensive congenital heart disease classification into the routine delivery of cardiac medical and surgical care and 45 years of continuous use are available for analysis of successes and failures. This chapter reviews the history of the FCS with particular emphasis on recognizing the lessons that should be learned by those who seek to implement something better.

Keywords

Taxonomy Nomenclature Classification Database Congenital heart disease 

References

  1. 1.
    Fyler DC, Parisi L, Berman MA. The regionalization of infant cardiac care in New England. Cardiovasc Clin. 1972;4:339–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chameides L, Galioto F, Fyler DC. The regional infant cardiac program. A six year evaluation. Conn Med. 1975;39:707–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rothman KJ, Fyler DC. Association of congenital heart defects with season and population density. Teratology. 1976;13:29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rothman KJ, Fyler DC. Sex, birth order, and maternal age characteristics of infants with congenital heart defects. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104:527–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farr W. Annual report of the registrar-general of the births deaths, and marriages in England. London; 1839. p. 99.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franklin RC. The European paediatric cardiac code long list: structure and function. Cardiol Young. 2000;10 Suppl 1:27–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mavroudis C, Jacobs JP. Congenital Heart Surgery Nomenclature and Database Project: Overview and Minimum Dataset. In: Mavroudis C, Jacobs JP, editors. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery April 2000 Supplement: The International Congenital Heart Surgery Nomenclature and Database Project. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, April 2000, Supplement, S2–17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chute CG, Cohn SP, Campbell JR. A framework for comprehensive health terminology systems in the United States: development guidelines, criteria for selection, and public policy implications. ANSI healthcare informatics standards board vocabulary working group and the computer-based patient records institute working group on codes and structures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:503–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyBoston Children’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations